Chinnappa Reddi, J.
1. The petitioner who was selected by the Public Service Commission was appointed as lower division clerk in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition. At his request he was transferred to Adilabad District and joined duty at Nirmal on 17-12-1965. Though he was entitled to have his service reckoned with effect from 17-12-1965 for the purpose of seniority, for some unknown reason, according to the seniority list published in 1969 his seniority was reckoned from 15-3-1966. The result was respondents 2 to 9 who were juniors to him and who were temporary lower division clerks when he joined duty at Nirmal were placed above him in the seniority list. Whereas he ought to have been placed at serial No. 60 he was actually placed at serial No. 68. In this application for the issue of a writ the petitioner seeks a direction that the seniority list should be rectified and that he should be placed at serial No. 60 instead of at serial No. 68. The facts alleged by the petitioner are not disputed. All that is said in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner should have taken proper steps for rectification of the seniority list at the appropriate time. In the circumstances of this case I do not see any reason why the petitioner should be denied his due seniority. I would like to point out that seniority lists are not published under any statutory authority. The earned Government Pleader was not able to ring to my notice any rule authorising the preparation of the seniority list. Apparently seniority lists are prepared for the guidance and convenience of the superior authorities as also for the benefit of the Government servants concerned. By fixing a date within which objections to a non-statutory seniority list must be made the authorities cannot thereby deprive the Government servant concerned of the rights, if any, which have accrued to him or have become vested in him under the statutory rules. No doubt if a Government servant sleeps over his rights and allows the non-statutory seniority list to he acted upon he will thereafter be estopped from questioning the seniority list. This is because he has allowed rights to be created in third parties by his own default and negligence. But where no rights have been created in third parties there is no reason why matters should not be rectified. In the present case, the seniority list was published in September, October, 1969. No promotions to the prejudice of the petitioner were made on the basis of the seniority list and the writ petition was filed in November, 1971. I am of the view that the relief claimed by the petitioner in regard to his seniority should be granted to him.
2. The petitioner also claims that although he is fully qualified for promotion respondents 10, 11 and 12 have been promoted temporarily as upper division clerks though unqualified and juniors to the petitioner. Respondents 13 and 14 who are seniors to the petitioners have also been promoted though they are not qualified under the rules. The petitioner submits that under Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules unqualified persons cannot be promoted temporarily if a qualified person is available. He relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Govardhan Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1972)2 Andh. W.R. 152. This judgment supports the case of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader invites my attention to the proviso to Rule 23(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules which provides for the promotion of an unqualified person who may be given two years time for qualifying himself. But the proviso applies, as stated in the proviso itself, only to cases where qualified persons are not available for appointment. The learned Government Pleader also invites my attention to Rule 4(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules and argues that since promotion has to be made on grounds of seniority cum efficiency it was open to the concerned authorities not to promote the petitioner if he was inefficient. Rule 4(3) I may say, deals with regular promotions and not temporary promotions. The question of assessing the efficiency of a candidate on a comparative basis arises at the time of making a regular selection and may not arise at the time of making temporary promotion. The respondents are, therefore, directed to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner and to consider his case for promotion in accordance with the provisions of Rule 37 of the State and Subordinate Services Rules, and the decision of this Court in Goverdhan Reddy v. Government of A.P. (1972)2 Andh. W.R. 152. There will be no order regarding costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.